FSU QB De'Andre Johnson suspended indefinitely

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,161
109,974
Founding Member
crosscreekcooter;n245822 said:
Everybody I have ever heard of that was a Golden Gloves boxer was a champ. It's gotta be kinda like soccer, where everybody gets a trophy.
Maybe so, but this was one dude I wouldn't eff with.
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,161
109,974
Founding Member
oxrageous;n245796 said:
I notice there are three lawyers commenting in this thread, and all three say the other ones are wrong. So who are we supposed to believe?
Actually, each have added nuances, or are proffering different situations, and in my case, a different jurisdiction and therefore a different statute. (Our statute doesn't have an SBI element, though there is one in the sentencing guidelines.)

However, here is the worst news for you. Everything is this way. There is almost nothing clear in the law. It's full of weasel words like reasonably, reasonable person, should have know, foreseeable, and a ton of others. Then lawyers advance and judges adopt defenses that aren't in the statute or four prong tests to determine if this or that applies, full of weasel words in each element. You can almost always find a lawyer to argue either side of an argument.

Moreover, the C students who had a friend or relative that is a politician often became the judges, and they get to be the one to decide between the various arguments and theories. Some are like one person juries they are so unpredictable. All bets are off.

You spend the first couple of months in law school waiting for the law profs to tell you the answers only to find there are no damn answers, just good questions or good arguments.

I hope that makes you feel better.
 

NVGator

Founding Member
Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 11, 2014
14,903
20,210
Founding Member
Law98gator;n245722 said:
Let me take a swing at that. I like the answer no... without more. If you intended to threaten someone with a toy gun (ie in the robbery) and you knew the gun looked real enough that they would assume it was real then it can be a crime. It's really your intent that matters.

Now, if you are playing war with your kids in your frontyard while carrying a realistic airsoft rifle, intending only to chase your kids around the house. The neighbor, Fred, sees you thinks that you have a real gun and represent a threat to him or someone else, and he shoots you. In that case it's Fred's intent (and his perception) that matters as to whether he would be charged or legally privileged to use that force.

I was with you all the way till Fred showed up. Who the eff is Fred?
 

Swamp Donkey

Founding Member
7-14 vs P5 Fire Stricklin First
Lifetime Member
Jun 9, 2014
78,161
109,974
Founding Member
I'm sorry. That wasn't very West Coast friendly. Let's call him Federico.
 

alcoholica

Founding Member
I'm what Willis was talking about
Lifetime Member
Jun 11, 2014
16,754
20,381
Founding Member
oxrageous;n245384 said:
You just made all that up, didn't you?

Is it that hard to believe that one of his relatives would be stupid enough not to fight this? Hell, Roderick Scott shot a 16 y/o skinny kid, and Scott was the size of an NFL LB, and he was acquitted. And all the kid did was run at him. And....it was in liberal NY.
 

NavetG8r

Founding Member
Stupid
Lifetime Member
Jun 11, 2014
16,720
16,674
Founding Member
Too much Law, and not enough order up in here.
:suspect2:
 

TN G8tr

Founding Member
The "Original" TN G8tr
Lifetime Member
Jun 14, 2014
7,372
9,022
Founding Member
Its all about ...........
 
Dec 10, 2014
2,179
3
Law98gator;n245840 said:
Actually, each have added nuances, or are proffering different situations, and in my case, a different jurisdiction and therefore a different statute. (Our statute doesn't have an SBI element, though there is one in the sentencing guidelines.)

However, here is the worst news for you. Everything is this way. There is almost nothing clear in the law. It's full of weasel words like reasonably, reasonable person, should have know, foreseeable, and a ton of others. Then lawyers advance and judges adopt defenses that aren't in the statute or four prong tests to determine if this or that applies, full of weasel words in each element. You can almost always find a lawyer to argue either side of an argument.

Moreover, the C students who had a friend or relative that is a politician often became the judges, and they get to be the one to decide between the various arguments and theories. Some are like one person juries they are so unpredictable. All bets are off.

You spend the first couple of months in law school waiting for the law profs to tell you the answers only to find there are no damn answers, just good questions or good arguments.

I hope that makes you feel better.

Good assessment of the profession Counselor
 

rogdochar

Founding Member
RIP
Lifetime Member
Jun 14, 2014
25,397
29,513
Founding Member
PatDooleySucks;n245758 said:
Originally posted by oxrageous View Post
It's entirely possible there are too many lawyers on the GCMB.



There are too many lawyers

..but that's all ok if we recognize that bar they did not pass, in getting here.
 

PastyStoole

Founding Member
Man, there's no boundary line to art. ~Bird Parker
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
2,090
5,801
Founding Member
alcoholica;n245878 said:
Is it that hard to believe that one of his relatives would be stupid enough not to fight this?

Guys like you tend to run from physical confrontations with other men. But in the more likely scenario that you gut punch a pregnant woman and are facing 15 years for doing so, please choose to fight it if the prosecutor offers you a suspended sentence. And make sure you use your standard, "she had it coming" defense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.